McGuire, Macey v. TC Restaurant Group, LLC
Citation
2025 TN WC 58
Court
Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims
Decided
August 13, 2025
Jurisdiction
SS
Importance
45%
Practice Areas
Case Summary
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS IN THE COURT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS AT NASHVILLE Macey McGuire, ) Employee, ) Docket No. 2025-60-0654 v. ) TC Restaurant Group, LLC, ) Employer, ) State File No. 2734-2024 Wesco Insurance Company, ) Carrier, ) And ) Troy Haley, as Administrator of the ) Judge Joshua D. Baker Subsequent Injury and Vocational ) Recovery Fund for the State of ) Tennessee. ) EXPEDITED HEARING ORDER (DECISION ON THE RECORD) Ms. McGuire requested a decision based on a review of the record seeking reinstatement of medical treatment and temporary disability benefits for a back injury. Because her authorized treating physician does not believe she suffered a work-related injury, the Court denies her request for benefits at this time. Motions to Strike Before delving into the merits of Ms. McGuire’s request, the Court must address defense counsel’s two motions. Both motions request to strike filings by Ms. McGuire and relate to deadlines established by this Court in its notice docketing this claim for review on the record. The docketing notice listed documents it was considering when reviewing the claim and gave the parties deadlines. Relevant here, the docketing notice said, “On or before July 16, 2025, each party shall file any objections to the admissibility of any document listed above and specifically state the legal basis for the objection.” The notice also gave aa July 23 deadline for filing position statements and stated that the Court will not consider any position statements filed after the deadline. Just two minutes before midnight on July 17, Ms. McGuire filed objections to portions of the listed documents and followed this up by filing an amended, more detailed, list of objections on July 25. Defense counsel opposed the objections and moved to strike them as untimely. The Court agrees and strikes the objections raised by Ms. McGuire in both her July 17 and July 25 filings. Ms. McGuire did not file her position statement until July 25. She said a serious family emergency prevented her from filing it on time and sent an email to the court clerk detailing the circumstances. The clerk forwarded this to defense counsel the next morning, and defense counsel moved to strike the position statement. Under the circumstances described in her email to the clerk, the Court grants her additional time and accepts the position statement. Claim History On December 22, 2023, Ms. McGuire injured her back at work “bending forward and twisting [her] upper body . . . to retrieve a fallen serving tray.” Initially, TC Restaurant Group provided medical treatment and paid temporary disability benefits. Ms. McGuire selected orthopedic spine surgeon Dr. Mitul Patel from a panel. After an MRI, Dr. Patel diagnosed “acute on chronic low back pain” and suspected a “lumbar strain” with “possible disk bulge [at] L4-L5/L5-S1.” On April 22, 2024, he signed a causation questionnaire in which he agreed the “work accident contribute[d] more than 50% to Ms. McGuire’s current complaints.” When asked if the work incident had caused a permanent aggravation, he circled, “Cannot state.” About a month later, Dr. Patel seemed confused in Ms. McGuire’s medical record about her “diffuse symptoms not only in her back but also the neck and the entire left side of her upper and lower extremities.” He wrote, “She is concerned about these neurologic symptoms. She asks for a neurology referral.” Although Dr. Patel wrote the referral, he expressed some doubt about its necessity by writing, “I am not sure if Workmen’s Compensation will cover this. She has simply had so many symptoms ever since she had this relatively benign work-related injury where she dropped a tray and bent over to pick it up.” In June 2024, defense counsel sent Dr. Patel video surveillance of the work accident and a written account from Ms. McGuire about what happened. Counsel asked Dr. Patel to review both the video and statement and then to respond to a series of questions by marking “yes” or “no.” As evidenced by his responses, Dr. Patel’s opinion on medical causation changed after reviewing the video and statement. He could no longer state with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Ms. McGuire suffered a lumbar strain or that her disc bulge resulted from the work incident. He also saw no other injury that might have occurred from the incident.
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
August 13, 2025
Jurisdiction
SS
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
AI-generated comprehensive summary with legal analysis
Case Overview
McGuire, Macey v. TC Restaurant Group, LLC, 2025 TN WC 58, is a significant case decided by the Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims on August 13, 2025. The case revolves around Macey McGuire's claim for workers' compensation benefits following a back injury sustained while working at TC Restaurant Group.
Legal Issues
The court addressed several critical legal issues:
- Entitlement to medical treatment and temporary disability benefits: Ms. McGuire sought reinstatement of benefits for her back injury, which was ultimately denied based on medical evidence.
- Timeliness of objections and position statements: The defense argued that Ms. McGuire's objections were filed late, leading to procedural complications.
- Timeliness of appeal filing: The court emphasized the importance of adhering to appeal timelines to prevent court orders from becoming enforceable.
Factual Background
- Injury Details: Ms. McGuire injured her back while retrieving a serving tray at work. This incident was central to her claim for benefits.
- Medical Opinions: Initially, Dr. Patel supported the causation of the injury related to the work incident. However, after reviewing additional evidence, including video footage, he retracted his opinion, stating that the work incident did not cause the injury.
- Procedural History: Ms. McGuire's objections to the denial of her benefits were filed after the established deadlines, leading to their dismissal by the court.
Court's Analysis
The court's reasoning included:
- Late Objections: The court found that Ms. McGuire's objections were filed beyond the deadlines set by procedural rules, resulting in their dismissal.
- Medical Evidence: The court relied on Dr. Patel's revised opinion, which indicated that the work incident did not cause the injury. The presumption of correctness for the paneled physician's opinion was critical in this determination.
- Enforceability of Court Orders: The court highlighted that if neither party files an appeal within the designated timeframe, the court order becomes enforceable, as stipulated in Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-239.
Holdings and Decision
The court held:
- Denial of Benefits: Ms. McGuire's request for benefits was denied due to insufficient medical proof linking her injury to the work incident.
- Enforceability of Orders: Court orders are enforceable if no timely appeal is filed, emphasizing the need for prompt action in the appeals process.
Legal Precedents
The court referenced several precedents:
- McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6: This case establishes the burden of proof for expedited hearings and emphasizes the necessity of proving likelihood of success at a final hearing.
- Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12)(A)-(E) (2025): This statute defines compensable injury and the burden of proof, stressing the need for medical certainty in establishing causation.
Practical Implications
The outcome of McGuire v. TC Restaurant Group underscores the importance of:
- Timeliness in Filing: Both objections and appeals must be filed within specified timeframes to avoid dismissal or enforceability of court orders.
- Medical Evidence: Claimants must provide clear and convincing medical evidence linking their injuries to work-related incidents to succeed in their claims.
- Legal Compliance: Legal practitioners must ensure compliance with procedural rules to protect their clients' rights in workers' compensation cases.
This case serves as a critical reminder of the procedural rigor required in workers' compensation claims and the significant role of medical evidence in establishing causation and entitlement to benefits.
Legal Topics
Areas of law covered in this case
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Judicial Panel
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
August 13, 2025
Jurisdiction
SS
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools